The Role of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court -A Case Study of Situation in Darfur

Transcription

1 FACULTY OF LAW Lund University Zhenyan Zhu The Role of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court -A Case Study of Situation in Darfur Master thesis 30 credits Dr. Karol Nowak Master s Programme in International Human Rights Law Spring 2011

2 Contents SUMMARY 1 PREFACE 3 ABBREVIATION 4 1 INTRODUCTION Background Purpose and Subject Matter Methodology and Materials Delimitation Disposition 7 2 OFFICE OF THE PROSECUTOR AND THE CHIEF PROSECUTOR Crimes within the Scope of the Prosecutor s Investigation and Prosecution Temporal, Territorial and Personal Jurisdiction Triggering the Jurisdiction by the Prosecutor Self-Referral Referral by the Security Council The Prosecutor s proprio motu Power The Principle of Complementarity Deferral The Distinctiveness of the ICC Prosecutor A Most Powerful and Independent Prosecutor A Weakest Prosecutor 16 3 THE BACKGROUND OF SITUATION IN DARFUR Factual Background of the Darfur Crisis Overview of the Conflict in Darfur Crimes Committed in Darfur The Report of UN International Commission of Inquiry in Darfur Key Findings of the Darfur Commission Recommendations of the Darfur Commission The Referral of Situation in Darfur by the Security Council The Referring Resolution The Flaws in Resolution

3 The Source of Funds The Absence of Article 13 (b) of the Rome Statute The Blurring Obligation of States to Cooperate with the ICC 28 4 ACTIVITIES OUTSIDE THE COURTROOM The Investigation at the Initial Phase Invitation of Amicus Curiae by Pre-Trial Chamber Cassese Observation Arbour Observation The Prosecutor s Response to Both Observations Response to Cassese Observation Response to Arbour Observation The First Major Step-The First Two Arrest Warrants The Risky Step-The Arrest Warrants against the Head of Sudan The Arrest Warrant against the Head of Sudan The Reaction to Arrest Warrant Some Controversies of Al Bashir Arrest Warrant Why not to Target Other Senior Government Officials? Why not to Apply a Summons to Appear as Alternative? Why not a Sealed Warrant? Why to Insist on the Genocide Charge in the Warrant? Why to Pursue A New Mode of Liability? The Prosecutor s Approach Outside the Courtroom From Conservative to Confrontational The Analysis of the Prosecutor s Approach The Government of Sudan Afrian Union The Security Council The Legal Framework of the Secirity Council s Action The Prosecutor s Failure to Seek Support from the Security Council Some Reflections on the Prosecutor s Approach Outside the Courtroom 59 5 THE PROSECUTOR S PERFORMANCE IN THE COURTROOM Failure of Confirmation of Charges in Abu Garda Case Reflection on the Procedure of Confirmation of Charges 66 6 CONCLUDING REMARKS 69

4 SUPPLEMENT 71 BIBLIOGRAPHY 74 TABLE OF CASES 77

5 Summary Since the Rome Statute entered force in 2002, the International Criminal Court (ICC) has already been operating for almost ten years. Some situations have been referred to the Court by possible means provided for in the Rome Statute. As a young criminal court, the Office of the Prosecutor, as an integrity part of the Court, may be the most visible organ which attracts worldwide attention. The Chief Prosecutor ( the Prosecutor ) is the crucial figure among the international legal professionals in the Court. He is the first one in the Court to respond to those crimes that have been committed and fall into the jurisdiction of the Court. Given the treaty-based nature of the Court, mandate of the Prosecutor and his powers provided for in the Rome Statute, he is a most powerful and independent prosecutor; but due to lack of enforcement power and independence from United Nations, he is a weakest prosecutor as well. The role of the Prosecutor is crucially important for the ICC and international criminal justice. His selection of situations to investigate, identification of suspects and his performance in prosecution have a long-term global impact and will necessarily shapes the way the work of the Court will be perceived. In this thesis, the role of the ICC Prosecutor will be discussed in the context of situation in Darfur, Sudan, which is the first situation referred to the ICC Prosecutor by the United Nations Security Council. In this situation, the Prosecutor seems to be confronted with criticism and suspicion in each step he took. The discussion is divided into two parts: activities and proceedings outside the courtroom and in the courtroom, respectively. For the former, the activities carried out by the Prosecutor and his Office are followed and the Prosecutor s approach from conservative to confrontational is identified and analysis of this approach is made considering the availability of cooperation and external support; for the latter, the hearings in the confirmation of charges will be covered for discussing his failure in charge confirmation. 1

6 The Prosecutor appeared to perform not very well both outside and inside the courtroom, but there is no denying the fact that he is in the difficult position as the first chief prosecutor and in this tough situation. This study is to make an objective evaluation of the role of the ICC Prosecutor bearing in mind that he is confronted with unprecedented structural and political constraints. 2

7 Preface At the first place, the author would like to thank everyone who has encouraged and helped me in the process of writing this thesis. Special thanks go to my supervisor, Dr Karol Norwak, for his suggestions on the topic, selection of materials and comments on structure. I will also thank Professor Lyal S. Sunga for his comments on my thesis topic. Gratitude also will be expressed to Ms. Iryna Marchuk for her warmly support in seeking proceeding documents of International Criminal Court for me. Finally, I would like to give my warmest thankfulness to all long-distance encouragement and support from my parents, my friends and my colleagues in China. 3

8 Abbreviation ICC ICTY ICTR SCSL ECCC Nuremberg Tribunal Tokyo Tribunal Darfur Commission SLM/A JEM ICJ OTP PTC OHCHR AU AMIS UNAMID Genocide Convention International Criminal Court International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda Special Court for Sierra Leone Extraordinary Chambers in the Court of Cambodia International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg International Military Tribunal at Tokyo International Commission of Inquiry in Darfur Sudan Liberation Movement/Army Justice and Equality Movement International Court of Justice Office of the Prosecutor Pre-Trial Chamber Office of High Commissioner of Human Rights African Union African Union Mission in Sudan UN-African Union Mission in Darfur Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide 4

9 1 Introduction 1.1 Background On 17 July 1998, the international community reached an historic milestone in international criminal justice when 120 states adopted the Rome Statute of International Criminal Court (ICC), the legal basis for establishing a permanent international criminal court. Since the Rome Statute entered into force on 1 July 2002 after ratification by 60 states, ICC has already been operating for almost ten years. The ICC is composed of four organs. They are the Presidency, the Judicial Division, the Office of the Prosecutor and the Registry. Among these organs, the Officee of the Prosecutor (OTP) is responsible for receiving referrals and any substantiated information on crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court, for examining them and for conducting investigations and prosecutions before the Court. The first Chief Prosecutor ( the Prosecutor ) was Mr Luis Moreno-Ocampo from Argentina, who was elected by the State Parties for a term of nine years. The Prosecutor is a crucial figure among those international legal professionals in the Court, each of whose conduct would have long-term global impact, in particularly at the current phase of the Court s whole life. Given his primary role in the selection of situations to investigate and cases to prosecute and the fact that he is a prosecutor of a permenant international criminal court, distinctive from prosecutors of ad hoc tribunals, he will certainly shape the way the work of the Court will be perceived. In this thesis, the role of the ICC Prosecutor will be explored to observe how he carries out his mission and fulfill his mandate, to what extent he exercises his power and discretion for the pursuit of international criminal justice and the impact of his performance. By the time of writing, three situations have been referred to the Prosecutor by the State parties- they are situation in Uganda, 1 situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo 2 and situation in the Central African Republic; 3 two situations referred by the Security Council of the United Nations-Situation in Darfur, Sudan 4 and 1 Situation in Uganda, ICC-02/04, 29 January Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, ICC-01/04, 19 April Situation in the Central African Republic, ICC-01/05, 7 January Situation in Darfur, Sudan, ICC-02/05, 31 March

10 Situation in Libya Arab Jamahiriya. 5 In addition, Pre-Trial Chamber granted the Prosecution authorization to open an investigation proprio motu in the situation in the Republic of Kenya. 6 The situation in Darfur, Sudan is selected in this thesis as a context to discuss the role of the ICC Prosecutor. It has been the first situation referred by the Security Council since the ICC was established and the state concerned Sudan is not a party to the Rome Statute, therefore this situation has its particularities compared with others. In judicial process of this situation, there are some controversies on the Prosecutor s investigative approach and prosecutorial strategy. From the activities and proceedings in the cases of this situation, the Prosecutor s performance can be observed and evaluated to see whether he appropriately exercises his power and discretion and whether his tactics serve his pursuit of international criminal justice. Given the Prosecutor s mandate and mission laid down in the Rome Statute, The Prosecutor s major task is two-fold: to investigate crimes falling within the jurisdiction of the ICC and to present cases at trial and on appeal if necessary. Hence, the prosecutor usually develops his work in two arenas: one is outside the courtroom and the other is in the courtroom. The tasks in the two places require different skills, strategies and personal qualities. For examining and evaluating the role of the ICC Prosecutor, the study would thus be based on such two scenarios. The Prosecutor s task begins outside the courtroom. He has to walk out of the court for conducting investigation of crimes, identifing suspects and seeking cooperation and support for surrender of the identified suspects. After the surrender of suspects, he will be present in the courtroom to prosecute the accused. The successful prosecution of those perpetrators committing grave international crimes will ultimately serve the object of the ICC establishment. 1.2 Purpose and Subject Matter The purpose of this thesis is to analyze the role of the Prosecutor in the pursuit of ending impunity for perpetrators of the most serious crimes of concern to the international community. 5 Situation in Libya Arab Jamahiriya, ICC-01/11, 26 February Situation in the Republic of Kenya, ICC-01/09, 6 November

11 The discussion will be based on specific activities and proceedings of the situation in Darfur. The examination and evaluation of the Prosecutor s role will be developed by following the activities carrying out by his Office, outlining the approach that he employed as well as his skills in prosecutions. 1.3 Methodology and Materials The research will employ a qualitative methodology in documentary analysis in examination and evaluation of the Prosecutor s role in the situation in Darfur. This will involve a review of literature relating to the proceedings including decisions, observations, orders, judgments and other relevant judicial documents. Policy Papers issued by the OTP, the Prosecutor s regular Reports and Statements addressed to the UN Security Council will also be utilized for the analysis. In addition, some study reports of social analysts and written of eminent publists will be referred to as second-hand resources. 1.4 Delimitation The ambit of this study is limited to Situation in Darfur, Sudan as a contextual background for discussion. Since the discussion will be based on the activities and proceedings of this situation, the scope of examination and assessment of the activities carried out by the Prosecutor and his Office and the proceedings in the Court are confined to those that have taken place by the time of writing. The discussion in this thesis will be divided on the basis of location where the Prosecutor carries out his tasks: outside the courtroom and in the courtroom. Although in the situation in Darfur, very few proceedings have occurred in the courtroom so far, it is still possible to scrutinize his role on the basis of limited hearings. 1.5 Disposition Chapter I is the Introduction, which gives a background of the thesis topic and objective of the study. Chapter II The OTP and the Chief Prosecutor gives a brief introduction of the ICC from the perspective of OTP including the powers and function of the OTP and the Prosecutor, the jurisdiction, the principle of complemtarity and also outline the distinctiveness of the ICC Prosecutor. 7

12 Chapter III The Background of the Situation in Darfur, intends to give a factual background of the Darfur crisis and the process how the situation was referred to the Prosecutor by the UN Security Council. Chapter IV Activities Outside the Courtroom follows the activities at the phase of investigation which took place mainly outside the courtroom. The approach that the Prosecutor used at this phase will be identified and some legal issues arising from these activities will be discussed in this chapter, including the experts observations on the Prosecutor s investigative strategy, the controversies of the arrest warrants against a sitting head of state. Some reflections will be rendered to explore the understandable side of the Prosecutor s loss. Chapter V Proceedings In the Courtroom, covers proceedings occurring in the courtroom though very limited hearings have taken place. Chapter VI is the Concluding Remarks, which will summarize the above chapters. 8

13 2 Office of the Prosecutor and the Chief Prosecutor The established instrument Rome Statute defines the role and function of OTP in Article 42. The OTP is a separate organ of the Court and shall act independently. It shall be responsible for receiving referrals and information on crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court, for examining them and for conducting investigations and prosecutions before the Court in accordance with Article 42 (1) of the Statute. The OTP is headed by the Prosecutor and he has full authority over the management and administration of the OTP. The first Chief Prosecutor Mr. Luis Moreno Ocampo describes his mission as to put an end to impunity for the most serious crimes of concern to the international community and thus, contribute to the prevention of future crimes, and also his mandate as to select the situations where the Court should intervene, to investigate and to prosecute the gravest crimes. 7 For the purpose of fulfillment of his mission and mandate, The Prosecutor must assess its jurisdiction, examining whether the alleged crimes are committed by nationals of State Parties or in the territory of State Parties. He also has to assess its temporal jurisdiction and whether alleged crimes fall under the Court s subject-matter jurisdiction. Besides, when a domestic court has concurrent jurisdiction or the proceedings take place in a domestic court, how the ICC can intervene and take over the case is also the consideration of the Prosecutor. 2.1 Crimes within the Scope of the Prosecutor s Investigation and Prosecution Four of the most serious crimes of international concern 8 fall within the scope of the Prosecutor s investigation and prosecution, they are genocide, war crimes, crime against humanity and crime of aggression, which are specifically provided for in Article 5, 6, 7, 8 of the Rome Statute. Except the crime of aggression 7 L. Moreno-Ocampo, The International Criminal Court-Some Reflections, 12 Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law, (2009), p.5. 8 Preamble of the Rome Statute. 9

14 which is expected to be defined when the time is ripe for amending the Statute, the other three crimes are well defined in the provisions of the Statute. Genocide in Article 6 is basically a copy of Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948) ( Genocide Convention ). Crime against humanity and war crime are also provided in unprecedented detail. 2.2 Temporal, Territorial and Personal Jurisdiction The ICC is a prospective institution in that it cannot exercise jurisdiction over crimes committed prior to the entry into force of the Statute. States were unwilling to allow the ICC to deal with past practices. Article 11 (1) of the Rome Statute declares the Court has jurisdiction only with respect to crimes committed after the entry into force of this Statute, that is, beginning on 1 July The Court has potentially worldwide jurisdiction, but this will be fully realized only after all states become parties to its Statute. Article 12 (2) provides that the Court may exercise its jurisdiction if one or more of the following States are Parties to this Statute or have accepted the jurisdiction of the Court: (a) The State on the territory of which the conduct in question occurred or, if the crimes was committed on board a vessel or aircraft, the State of registration of that vessel or aircraft; (b) The State of which the person accused of the crimes is a national. In the event of referral by the Security Council, the Court has jurisdiction even if none of the relevant States is a party to the Statute or gives its consent. In the light of permanent and global nature of the Court, the OTP is probably seized with more than one situation at a time. Usually each situation involved an untold number of victims and many alleged perpetrators, but given the limited resources of the OTP, not all perpetrators would be prosecuted. The Statute gives some guidance to this issue. The Preamble affirms that the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole must not go unpunished. Article 5 of 10

15 the Statute provides that the jurisdiction of the Court shall be limited to the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole and Article 17, dealing with admissibility, adds that a case is inadmissible where the case is not of sufficient gravity to justify further action by the Court. When the OTP design its prosecutorial policy and strategy, it should take into account the global nature of the ICC, its statutory provisions and logistical constraints. The general rule of a preliminary recommendation is the Office of the Prosecutor should focus its investigative and prosecutorial efforts and resources on those who bear the greatest responsibility, such as the leaders of the States or organization allegedly responsible for these crimes Triggering the Jurisdiction by the Prosecutor In the previous practice of war trials and existing ad hoc tribunals, there is no need to trigger the jurisdiction because the targets of prosecution have usually been specifically defined in the established legislative documents. The exercise of prosecutorial discretion is well circumscribed by the temporal, personal and territorial jurisdiction of a tribunal. But it is quite different with respect to the ICC. The Court s focus of prosecution is not pre-determined and the Prosecutor can trigger the jurisdiction in three ways, which are provided for in Article 13 of the Rome Statute Self-Referral The first way is self-referral. According to Article 14 (1) of the Rome Statute, a State may refer to the Prosecutor a situation in which one or more crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court appear to have been committed, requesting the Prosecutor to investigate the situation for the purpose of determining whether one or more specific persons should be charged with the commission of such crimes. In this circumstance, the referring state must be a state party itself or have accepted the jurisdiction of the Court pursuant 9 Paper on some policy issues before the Office of the Prosecutor, ICC-OTP, 2003, p.7. 11

16 to Article 12 (3). Early on 16 December 2003, the Government of Uganda referred the situation in northern Uganda, which is the first situation referred to the Prosecutor. Later, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and the Central Africa Republic followed Uganda s example and referred the situations in their terrorities to the Prosecutor Referral by the Security Council The second way is the Security Council referral. According to Article 13 (b) of the Rome Statute, a situation in which one or more of crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court appears to have been committed may be referred to the Prosecutor by the UN Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of United Nations. The situation in Darfur, Sudan is the first situation referred by the Security Council which will be discussed in details in this thesis. In the most recent, the Security Council decided unanimously to refer the situation in Libyan Arab Jamahiriya since 15 February 2011 to the Prosecutor, which was the second situation referred by the Security Council The Prosecutor s proprio motu Power The third way is that the Prosecutor may exercise his proprio motu power to initiate an investigation which is provided for in Article 15 of the Rome Statute. This is a bold innovation of the Rome Statute. Such power is the very discretion of the ICC Prosecutor which is significantly different from that of the prosecutors of other ad hoc tribunals or special courts. The Prosecutor may initiate investigation proprio motu on the basis of information on crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court. The Prosecutor shall analyse the seriousness of the information received. If the Prosecutor concludes that there is a reasonable basis to proceed with an investigation, he or she shall submit to the Pre-Trial Chamber a request for authorization of an investigation. Therefore, the Prosecutor s such power is subject to review by the Pre-Trial Chambers, which is aimed to avoid as much as possible politically motivated prosecution on the one hand, on the other 12

17 hand, the Prosecutor could not target a situation in a solitary fashion. In the absence of political backing in the form of a State or Security Council referral, the Prosecutor would need the judicial backing of the Court. 10 The decision to proceed would therefore be taken in a collective manner, thus not only preventing possible abuse of power but also shielding the Prosecutor from external pressures. 11 Such authorization could be deemed as a mechanism of the checks and balances: when the Prosecutor requests an arrest warrant or a confirmation of charges, the decision is made by a panel of judges, subject to the review of the Appeals Chambers. 12 From the perspective of international criminal justice, such power is of great importance since it can guarantee independence of the Prosecutor and ultimate effectiveness of a permanent international criminal court within the complex political context of international community. In the Prosecutor s view, such power is a privilege as well as a huge responsibility. It is the first time the Prosecutor of an international court is given the mandate to independently select situations to investigate The Principle of Complementarity In spite of the above three ways to trigger the jurisdiction, the Prosecutor will not exercise jurisdiction over these crimes directly. In the case of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, the ICC operates in parallel with national justice systems, which are also positioned to prosecute the offences in question. The underlying premise of the Rome Statute is that, when national justice systems fail, the ICC steps in, as a last resort to speak. 14 Thus, in cases of concurrent jurisdiction between national systems and the ICC, the former takes the priority. Paragraph 10 of the preamble of the Rome Statute emphasizes that the International Criminal Court 10 Silvia A. Fernandez de Gurmendi, The Role of the International Prosecutor, in Roy S. Lee (ed.), The International Criminal Court, The Making of the Rome Statute, Issues, Negotiations, Resuilts, (Kluwer Law International, 1999), p Ibid. 12 Supra note 7, p Ibid. 14 William A. Schabas, An Introduction to the International Criminal Court, (Cambridge University Press, 2007), p

18 established under this Statute shall be complementary to national criminal jurisdictions. Article 1 of the Statute repeats this principle. The principle of complementarity represents the explicit will of States parties to create an institution that is global in scope while recognizing the primary responsibility of States themselves to exercise criminal jurisdiction. The principle is also based on considerations of efficiency and effectiveness since States will generally have the best access to evidence and witness. Moreover, there are limits on the number of prosecutions the ICC can bring. 15 Consequently, in deciding whether to investigate or prosecute, the Prosecutor must first assess whether there is or could be an exercise of jurisdiction by national systems with respect to particular crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court. The Prosecutor can proceed only where States fail to act, or are not genuinely investigating or prosecuting, as described in Article 17 of the Rome Statute, 16 which provides exception to the primacy of state jurisdiction. The Court will be able to declare a case to be admissible when a State is unwilling or unable genuinely to carry out the investigation or prosecution. A State is unwilling if the national decision has been made and proceedings are or were being undertaken for the purpose of shielding the person concerned from criminal responsibility; there has been an unjustified delay which is inconsistent with an intent to bring the person concerned to justice; or the proceedings were not or are not being conducted independently or impartially. 17 To assess whether a State is unable to act, the Prosecutor will need to determine whether due to a total of substantial collapse or unavailability of its national judicial system, the State is unable to obtain the accused or the necessary evidence and testimony or otherwise unable to carry out its proceedings. 18 A Court based on the principle of complementarity ensures the international rule of law by creating an interdependent, mutually reinforcing international 15 Supra note 9, p.4 16 Ibid. 17 Ibid. 18 Ibid. 14

19 system of justice. 19 The OTP encourages genuine national proceedings where possible, relies on national and international networks and participates in a system of international cooperation. 20 From this principle, the effectiveness of the ICC should not be measured only by the number of cases that reach the Court. On the contrary, the absence of trials by the ICC, as a consequence of the effective functioning of national systems, would be a major success Deferral The Prosecutor s investigation and prosecution can be intervened by the Security Council. Article 16 of the Statute provides that [N]o investigation or prosecution may be commenced or proceeded with under the Statute for a period of 12 months after the Security Council, in a resolution adopted under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, has requested the Court to that effect; that request may be renewed by the Council under the same conditions. For such deferral, the Security Council will have to act under Chapter VII of the Charter, which applies only where there is threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression. The rational of the intervention in judicial proceedings by a political organ lies in the priority choice of peace and justice. It allows the Security Council, under its primary responsibility for the maintenance of peace and security, to set aside the demands of justice at a time when it decides the demand of peace should take the priority. If the suspension of judicial proceedings leads to negotiation and conclusion of a peace agreement, precedence should be given to peace. Of course, such suspension should be only temporary. It is worthy noting that, among five permenant member states of the Security Council, US and China have not join the Rome Statute yet. US, though making constructive and helpful contribution during the Statute 19 Report on Prosecutorial Strategy, The Office of the Prosecutor, ICC-OTP, 14 September 2006, p5. 20 Ibid. 21 Supra note 9, p.1. 15

20 drafting, resigned its siganiture so as to exclude its nationals from the jurisdiction of the ICC. China did not sign the Rome Statute because it has major reservations on a series issues such as the jurisdiction of the ICC, Prosecutor s proprio motu power, the definition of crimes against humanity. 2.6 The Distinctiveness of the ICC Prosecutor A Most Powerful and Independent Prosecutor Each international criminal judicial institution has its legal basis of foundation. The earlier International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg was established by London Treaty signed by four Allied states. The two ad hoc tribunals after the cold war International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) are all created on the basis of the Security Council resolutions. Other special tribunals such as Special Court of Sierra Leone (SCSL), Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC) and Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) are usually set up by the agreements 22 between UN and State governments concerned. Unlike its precedents, the ICC was established by a multilateral treaty. The multilateral treaty-based court renders the ICC strikingly different from its precedents and the ICC Prosecutor bears the outcome of such differences. Given the personal, temporal and territory jurisdictions provided in the Rome Statute, the ICC Prosecutor can exercise the widest jurisdiction rather than being restricted narrowly by the Security Council resolutions or any other agreement. Moreover, the creative propri motu power authorized him to decide when and where to initiate an investigation, which has never been granted to the prosecutors of other tribunals. Therefore, the ICC Prosecutor ends up being a most powerful and independent prosecutor A Weakest Prosecutor On the other side, the circumstances where the Prosecutor will act will differ from situation to situation. He may for example have to act in a situation of 22 In broad term, such agreement falls into the category of treaty. 16

21 violence over which the State authorities have no control. The Prosecutor may also be asked to act in a situation where those who have the legitimate monopoly of force in a State are themselves the ones to commit or having committed the crimes, and the enforcement authorities in that State will consequently not be available to the Prosecutor. In these circumstances, the Prosecutor will not be able to exercise his powers without the intervention of the international community, regardless through the use of peacekeeping forces or otherwise; the Prosecutor will not be able to establish an office in the country concerned without being assured of its safety. He will also have to be assured that there will be the means available for investigation, protection of witnesses and arrest of suspects. 23 Unlike prosecutor in national courts, a national prosecutor acts within a State which has the monopoly of force in its terrority. The enforcement agencies of the State are subject to the rule of law and are at the disposal of the national prosecution system. 24 For ICC Prosecutor, external support is crucially important for the fulfillment of tasks. All the contemporary international criminal judicial institutions would face a challenge -the absence of enforcement powers in that they do not have police and military force to assist the prosecutors tasks and enforce the decisions of the courts. This problem is even more serious for the ICC due to their different established basis and background. The earlier Nuremberg Tribunal was a product of the London Treaty which was signed by Allied powers, which was equipped with enforcement teeth by the occupation of the Allied states. The Tokyo Tribunal was more tricky in that its foundation was rested on General MacArthor s proclamation establishing another tribunal patterened after Nuremberg Tribunal and his subsequent appointment of its judges, so the enforcement has never been a major barrier. For the recent precedents, ICTY and ICTR could at least in theory be backed up by the Security Council on the basis of Chapter VII of the UN Charter when enforcement is required. Notably, ICTY was created during the on-going armed conflicts and once faced with difficulties of lack 23 supra note 9, pp Ibid., p.1. 17

22 of an occupation army support to enforce its decisions. But later, Annex 1-A of Dayton Peace Agreement included an obligation on all the former Yugoslav States to cooperate with the ICTY 25 and provided that international forces in former Yugoslavia had the authority to arrest those indicted by the ICTY. 26 For the courts with a hybrid nature, the SCSL was established by treaty between government of Sierra Leone and the United Nations for the request from the President of Sierra Leone to the Security Council for the creation of a special court to deal with crimes committed in the civil war. The agreement between the Government and the UN Secretary-General was signed attaching the Statute of the Court and Sierra Leone adopted implementing legislation. 27 An similar agreement between the UN and Cambodian government was adopted by the General Assembly, ratified by the Cambodian National Assembly and ECCC was established. The Extraordinary Chambers form part of the domestic system of Cambodia. These hybrid courts are combined with international and national elements and they can rely on domestic systems for enforcement. For the above international criminal judicial institutions, in spite of lack of enforcement power, they are more or less buttressed by political will of some states or groups concerned. 28 For the ICC, legally and theoretically speaking, it is least politically biased with least external backing if not at all. It is neither a court created by the intent of the victors of armed conflicts for legitimatize their victory or their subsequent rule in their territory nor the one set up during the on-going conflicts motivated by some state group s intent to intervene in the name of whole international community. There is no denying the fact that political will, to a certain extent, in the form of legal means, guarantees the 25 Article X of Annex 1-A of Dayton Peace Agreement, available at 26 Article IV (4) Annex 1-A of Dayton Peace Agreement. 27 The Special Court Agreement (2002) Ratification Act, Suppl. Cryer, Hakan Friman, Darryl Robinson, Elizabeth Wilmshurst: An Introduction to International Criminal Law and Procedure, (Cambridge University Press, 2008), p But the so-called enforcement powers were highly politicalized and thus their judicial nature were diluted. 18

23 enforcement of the judicial decisions. This is crucial for the ICC Prosecutor since he would be the first one in the Court who has to seek cooperation and support from international community for the purpose of investigation, surrender of suspects and so forth. An ambitious mandate with weakest equipment renders state cooperation and other external support of prime importance for the ICC Prosecutor, but such enforcing resources are of less predictability. In this sense, the ICC Prosecutor is the weakest prosecutor in the world. 19

24 3 The Background of Situation in Darfur 3.1 Factual Background of the Darfur Crisis Overview of the Conflict in Darfur For a better understand of the situation in Darfur, it is very important to obtain an overview of origins and development of the conflict. The Sudan is the largest country in Africa with a territory bordering Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Uganda, Kenya, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Central African Republic, Chad and Libya. The Darfur region is a geographically large area in the western part of the Sudan. The roots of present conflict in Darfur are very complex. In addition to the tribal feuds resulting from desertification, the availability of modern weapons, and other factors noted above, deep layers relating to identity, governance and the emergence of armed rebel movements which enjoy popular support amongst certain tribes, are playing a major role in shaping the current crisis. 29 The two rebel groups in Darfur, the Sudan Liberation Movement/Army (SLM/A) and Justice and Equality Movement (JEM), citing similar reasons for the rebellion including socio-economic and political marginalization of Darfur and its people, organized themselves in the course of 2001 and 2002 in opposition to the Khartoum Government, which was perceived to be the main cause of the problems in Darfur. Both rebel groups had a clearly stated political agenda involving the entirety of the Sudan, demanding more equal participation in government by all groups and regions of the Sudan. 30 The conflict began in approximately August 2002 with the government attempts to control the insurgency through deployment of the Sudanese 29 Report of the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur to the United Nations Secretary-General Pursuant to Security Council Resolution 1564 of 18 September 2004, Geneva, 25 January 2005, [Report of Darfur Commission], para Ibid., para

25 Armed Forces (SAF). On 25 April 2003, An attack against El Fasher, the capital of North Darfur state, by SLA inflicted unprecedented losses on the government. After the attack, the government ceased peace negotiations with the rebels and initiated a counterinsurgency campaign in North and West Darfur. As part of the campaign, the government recruited a large number of militia known as Janjaweed. SAF with Janjaweed launched attacks on towns controlled by the rebels. In April 2004, the government and the rebels signed a ceasefire agreement. Despite the agreement, the rebels continued their attacks in South, leading the government to initiate another major military operation in December. By January 2005, government armed forces reached the base of the rebel Crimes Committed in Darfur By all accounts, the armed conflict in Darfur has been a humanitarian catastrophe. While there has been some controversy about the number of deaths caused by the conflict, 31 there is no doubt that the ruthless counterinsurgency led by the government forces and the Janjaweed militias involved war crimes and crimes against humanity. In the meantime, the rebels may also be responsible for a significant number of war crimes, including attacks on civilians and humanitarian workers. 32 By the second half of 2004, Darfur was receiving extensive media coverage and visits of senior officials from western states. The reports of international humanitarian agencies and the media showed the existence of war crimes and crimes against humanity. 31 US State Department s estimate of deaths in Darfur was 60,000to 160,000, in 2004, World Health Organization reported that 70,000 had died; other authorities suggest that mortality is likely to be closer to 400,000, See Darfur s Real Death Toll, Washington Post, retrieved on 8 May It is almost impossible to estimate exactly how many of Darfur s six million inhabitants are affected by the conflict although it is clear that the related in security has affected most of the inhabited areas of Darfur. See Office of UN Resident and Humanitarian Co-ordinator for the Sudan, Darfur Humanitarian Profile No.3, 1 July See Human Rights Watch, Lack of Conviction: The Special Criminal Court on the Events in Darfur 3-4, retrieved on 9 May

26 In 2005, the US government began an investigation into what was happening in Darfur which included interviews with refugees in eastern Chad and sophisticated use of satellite imagery. It produced a welldocumented report with evidence that war crimes and crimes against humanity and most participants in the investigation agreed that the events met the test for genocide. US Secretary of State Colin Powell, called the government s counter-insurgency war genocide The Report of UN International Commission of Inquiry in Darfur Given the crisis in Darfur, in 2004, the Security Council adopted Resolution 1564 to request the Secretary-General rapidly establish an international commission of inquiry in order to immediately to investigate reports of violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law in Darfur by all parties, to determine also whether or not acts of genocide have occurred, and to identify the perpetrators of such violations with a view to ensuring that those responsible are held accountable. 34 In October 2004, the Secretary General appointed Antonio Cassese, Mohamed Fayek, Hina Jilani, Dumisa Ntsebeza and Therese Striggner-Scott as members of the UN International Commission of Inquiry in Darfur ( Darfur Commission ) and Cassese served as the Chairperson. The Commission were requested to report back on their findings within three months. The Commission engaged in a regular dialogue with the Government of the Sudan throughout its mandate, in particular through meetings in Geneva and in the Sudan, as well as through the work of its investigative team. 35 The Darfur Commission visited Sudan including travel to the three Darfur States. During its presence in the Sudan, it held extensive meetings with representatives of the Government, the Governors of the Darfur States and other senior officials in 33 Sudan Tribunal, US State Dept. Still Characterizes Darfur Situation as Genocide, 19 June 2009, retrieved on 4 June, UNSC Res 1564 (September 18, 2004) UN Doc S/RES/1564 (2004), para Report of Darfur Commission, p.2. 22

27 the capital and at provincial and local levels, members of the armed forces and police, leaders of rebel forces, tribal leaders, internally displaced persons, victims and witnesses of violations, NGOs and United Nations representatives Key Findings of the Darfur Commission The Commission submitted a full report on its findings to the Secretary- General on 25 January The Report addressed the findings in relation to the key tasks referred to in the resolution In accordance with its mandate to investigate reports of violations of human rights law and international humanitarian law, the Commission established that the Government of the Sudan and the Janjaweed are responsible for serious violations of international human rights and humanitarian law amounting to crimes under international law. 37 In particular, the Commission found that Government forces and militias conducted indiscriminate attacks, including killing of civilians, torture, enforced disappearances, destruction of villages, rape and other forms of sexual violence, pillaging and forced displacement, throughout Darfur. These acts were conducted on a widespread and systematic basis, and therefore may amount to crimes against humanity. 38 While the Commission did not find a systematic or a widespread pattern to these violations, it found credible evidence that rebel forces, namely members of the SLA and JEM, also are responsible for serious violations of international human rights and humanitarian law which may amount to war crimes. 39 In particular, these violations include cases of murder of civilians and pillage. 40 But regarding the acts of genocide, the Commission concluded that the Government of the Sudan has not pursued a policy of genocide. 41 The Commission identified a number of individual perpetrators who are possibly responsible for the above-mentioned violations, including 36 Ibid. 37 Ibid., p Ibid., p Ibid., p Ibid., p Ibid., p.5. 23

28 officials of the Government of Sudan, members of militia forces, members of rebel groups, and certain foreign army officers acting in their personal capacity. Some Government officials as well as members of militia forces, have also been identified as possibly responsible for joint criminal enterprise to commit international crimes. Others are named for their possible involvement in planning and/or ordering the commission of international crimes, or of aiding and abetting the perpetration of such crimes. The Commission also has identified a number of senior Government officials and military commanders who may be responsible, under the notion of superior (or command) responsibility, for knowingly failing to prevent or repress the perpetration of crimes. Members of rebel groups are also named as suspected of participating in a joint criminal enterprise to commit international crimes, and as possibly responsible for knowingly failing to prevent or repress the perpetration of crimes committed by rebels Recommendations of the Darfur Commission With regard to the accountability mechanisms, the Darfur Commission strongly recommended the referral of the situation of Darfur to the ICC by the UN Security Council, 43 based on the justification of six major merits. 44 First, the International Criminal Court was established with an eye to crimes likely to threaten peace and security. This is the main reason why the Security Council may trigger the Court s jurisdiction under Article 13 (b) of the Rome Statute. The investigation and prosecution of crimes perpetrated in Darfur would have an impact on peace and security. More particularly, it would be conducive, or contribute to, peace and stability in Darfur, by 42 Ibid., p Ibid., para Sudan signed the Rome Statute of the ICC on 8 September 2000, but has not yet ratified it and is thus not a State party. The prosecution of nationals of a State that is not party to the Rome Statute is possible under limited circumstances. First, according to article 12 (2)(a) of Rome Statute, it is obviously applicable in Darfur crisis since the crimes occurred in the Sudan and were allegedly committed by Sudanese nationals; secondly, the ICC s jurisdiction can be trigged by a referral to the Prosecutor by the Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the Charter according to article 13 (b); thirdly, the Sudan may, by declaration lodged with the Court s Registrar, accept the exercise of jurisdiction by the Court with respect to the crimes in question, para

29 removing serious obstacles to national reconciliation and the restoration of peaceful relations. Second, as the investigation and prosecution in the Sudan of persons enjoying authority and prestige in the country and wielding control over the State apparatus, is difficult or even impossible, resort to the ICC, the only truly international institution of criminal justice, which would ensure that justice be done. The fact that trials proceedings would be conducted in the Hague, the seat of the ICC, far away from the community over which those persons still wield authority and where their followers live, might ensure a neutral atmosphere and prevent the trials from stirring up political, ideological or other passions. Third, only the authority of the ICC, backed up by that of the United Nations Security Council, might compel both leading personalities in the Sudanese Government and the heads of rebels to submit to investigation and possibly criminal proceedings. Fourth, the Court, with an entirely international composition and a set of well-defined rules of procedure and evidence, is the best suited organ for ensuring a veritably fair trial of those indicted by the Prosecutor. Fifth, the ICC could be activated immediately, without any delay (which would be the case if one were to establish ad hoc tribunals or so called mixed or internationalized courts). Sixth, the institution of criminal proceedings before the ICC, at the request of the Security Council, would not necessarily involve a significant financial burden for the international community. 45 The Commission also excluded the advisability of other mechanisms such as setting up ad hoc tribunals, expanding to mandate of existing ad hoc tribunals and establishing mixed courts Ibid., para Ibid., para

30 3.3 The Referral of Situation in Darfur by the Security Council The Referring Resolution 1593 Soon after the Report of the Darfur Commission, on 31 March 2005,the Security Council adopted resolution 1593 by vote of 11 in favor to none against, with 4 abstentions (Algeria, Brazil, China and United States). 47 In this resolution, the Security Council acted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter and referred the situation prevailing in Darfur since 1 July 2002 to the Prosecutor of the ICC. It decides the Government of Sudan and all other parties to the conflict in Darfur shall cooperate fully with the Court and the Prosecutor and invites African Union to discuss practical arrangements. The Prosecutor is invited to report to the Security Council regularly on actions taken pursuant to this resolution. Among the positions of member States, United States insisted that a better mechanism would have been a hybrid tribunal in Africa and continued to fundamentally object to the view that the ICC should be able to exercise jurisdiction over the nationals, including government officials of States not party to the Rome Statute. 48 China supported a political solution and preferred that the perpetrators stand trial in Sudanese courts. China believed the perpetrators must be brought to justice, but it was important to sustain the hard-won gains of the North-South peace process. 49 Sudanese Ambassador El-Fatih Mohamed Ahmed Erwa warned the Council that the resolution would only serve to weaken prospects for settlement and further complicate the already complex situation Press release: retrived on 4 March, Ibid. 49 Ibid. 50 Ibid. 26